General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Is the justice system in the USA irremediably broken because Trump pardoned even war criminals, traitors of the country, etc?

Asked by luigirovatti (2112points) 3 weeks ago

Because, if the president is allowed to pardon and absolve guilt after the fact, there’s a million ways for a sitting president to grift that. For example, what if the president intentionally engages in getting billions of dollars in a campaign slush fund and then just pardoned all the people involved in this fund?

I mean Paul Manafort for “traitors of the country”, because he was a direct conduit to the Russians through Konstantin Kilimnik and Oleg Deripaska, and Evan Liberty as “war criminals”, because on 2007, in a shooting rampage in Baghdad, killed more than a dozen civilians.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

70 Answers

Zaku's avatar

We’re about to find out what remedies might or might not be functional in practice.

luigirovatti's avatar

@Zaku: Is there even a possible “counter” to this thing?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The justice system isn’t broken; the dictator wannabe in the Oval Office is broken and whacked out

Darth_Algar's avatar

Nope. The presidential pardon system works exactly as designed.

By the way: a pardon does not absolve guilt. The very act of accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No. Trump was an unfortunate aberration which only the justice system was apparently able to hold in check. The judicial branch was the single compartment in the triad which functioned as designed, and we lucked out. Our idiot President has not a clue on how any of it works, and the idea of rule of law is as meaningless to him as the concepts of character or integrity.

Dutchess_III's avatar

However it’s a two edged sword. They can now be subpoenaed to testify against him. (But I don’t understand why they couldn’t be subpoenaed before….?)

janbb's avatar

@Dutchess_III They could have but then they could have pleaded the Fifth and now theoretically they can’t.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That makes no sense. Why can’t they plead the 5th?

janbb's avatar

^^ Because it doesn’t matter any more. They’ve been convicted and pardoned so it doesn’t matter if they incriminate themselves.

I’m just telling you what I’ve read. If you want to argue about it, talk to the hand.

lonesome-dog's avatar

It’s not absolving the perp from a crime, rather it stops any punishment from occurring. Indeed your reputation has taken a serious hit – folks won’t be lining up to hire you nor will you be able to run for public office or work as a civil servant. You won’t even get the money in fines and forfeiture that you’ve given up.

I’d rather do the time than sit in the no-man’s-land of a presidential pardon.

While I’m at it, why oh why isn’t the pardon seen as the graft magnet that it most certainly is? I get that the constitution is seen as sacrosanct, but common sense should rule. Give a thug the opportunity to be a thug and he will.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m not arguing. I’m just trying to understand @janbb. And now I do. Thank you.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You see the flaw. The entire machine is constructed around the principle that people collectively will emplace a President with at least the APPEARANCE of competence and some measure of integrity. In other words, the thing at its foundation works only if common sense is the norm.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

The number of pardons is small. The real damage Trump is inflicting is from the lawsuits and moves in Congress to throw out the election results. He has poisoned atmosphere in an attempt to kill democracy.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I think that far worse than the pardons is the extraordinary precedent now set that an insufferable, vindictive, strikingly dishonest know-nothing can actually be elevated to the Presidency of the United States. Were this not in itself sufficiently catastrophic, consider that this individual is permitted to flaunt his glaring irregularities nearly unchecked in defiance of all save the courts for a full 4 year term.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Boggles my mind too Stanly.

si3tech's avatar

If the system of justice is irretrievably broken that is not why. It is broken by illegal acts by our corrupt government. The swamp, th rinos. The fraudulent elections. This one is NOT the first. And if it is allowed to stand thereby shredding our constitution, our country will no longer exist.

janbb's avatar

^^ ROFL

JLeslie's avatar

No. This isn’t a new thing. Presidents have the power to pardon. Some people have talked about revisiting the ability to do so, saying that a president shouldn’t be able to pardon someone he has been intertwined with. That could be discussed for the future; it should be.

Presidents being able to give clemency, commute sentences, and pardon is a good thing a lot of the time. Some people are jailed with ridiculously long sentences and it’s terrible. Sometimes women, girlfriends, of drug dealers serve longer than the dealer boyfriends. Let them out of jail!

ragingloli's avatar

Drumpf openly expanded the swamp, and filled it with his leeches and crocodiles, apparently anyone not licking drumpf’s asshole is a “rino”, and 60 lawsuits attempting to overturn the election, lost due to a complete lack of evidence shows that the election was not “stolen”. Now you have drumpf allies calling supreme court justice roberts a “murderous paedophile” because he dared to not support drumpf’s attempt to steal the election, and called for pence to be executed by firing squad for the same reason.

The part of the president having these unchecked pardoning powers, yes, because it means that any president can have people commit crimes for his benefit with imputinity, and can just pardon them, possibly even himself, after the fact, and even preemptively.

Zaku's avatar

@luigirovatti “Is there even a possible “counter” to this thing”
Yes. There are many possible counters.

Presidential pardons only apply to Federal crimes, and only the crimes mentioned in the pardon. So this leaves pardoned people open to prosecution for crimes in other levels and jurisdictions.

So pardoned people could be prosecuted for state crimes, municipal crimes, international crimes, and Federal crimes other than the ones listed.

And since they can’t be prosecuted for the named crimes, they can be compelled to give evidence about those crimes, which before they could avoid talking about due to the right not to incriminate oneself. Since many of these people are interrelated in their corrupt activities, interrogating each of them could turn up crimes that could be prosecuted against each other, or other people, which aren’t named in a pardon.

What we have to find out, is what will in practice be done.

filmfann's avatar

No. I am sure a future Congress and Senate will address this.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m not sure we should fool with it. After all, this is the only time we’ve had a cartoon character completely devoid of any ethical sense planted in the White House.

Zaku's avatar

Well that might be an even better way to fix it, if we could require some ethics in a president…

stanleybmanly's avatar

See, we once again arrive back at the crucial fact. It is the ethics of the VOTERS which determine our President. Yeah, the sleazeball is the expressed will of “our” people.

kritiper's avatar

No. If one thinks that, then they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Sorry, but this is the clearest case in my lifetime (or yours) of people in mass denial of what is openly in front of them. Something that is without question the direct opposite of every principled directive they have acquired. Trump is by no stretch a difficult test in regard to ethical suitability. There will never be a more clear cut or definitive answer to the question: does character matter? And the answer from 70 million Americans is “not enough.”

seawulf575's avatar

Given all the pardons over the years, if you see these as worse than some of the others we have survived, I think you need to look at your own premises. You claim Manafort is a traitor. I find your reasoning faulty. But remember Bradley Manning (who later became Chelsea Manning)? He was tried and convicted of giving secrets to al-Qaeda, violations of the espionage act, releasing classified materials to Wikileaks, theft of government property and several violations of the UCMJ. He definitely fits the definition of traitor. He was pardoned by Obama in the tail end of his presidency. We survived that. Unless you are suggesting that act so weakened the justice system that the next nothing of a pardon broke it?

stanleybmanly's avatar

So what are the chances that Biden will pardon Trump? Do you suppose there will be enough cases submitted against the fool in enough jurisdictions to tie him up in the courts for both terms of Biden’s Presidency?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I can’t believe there are no tests to determine a person’s fitness for the job.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Believe it. There are plenty of tests. They just aren’t about such trifles as honesty, competence, literacy, intellect, character, you know, the usual “progressive” list of inanities.

Dutchess_III's avatar

God. If they simply had to submit a resume.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What good would it do Dutch? I mean would you really need to review a resume of Trump to convince you to believe what your eyes and ears surely tell you? Do you think it might make a difference had Trump confessed in October on National television “I am a cognitively challenged, narcissistic know nothing”, I mean a 4 year demonstration of that very confession acted out before the world, and 70 million of the people here completely missed the lesson. I’ll tell you one thing: there is an incredible fortune to be realized shearing people THIS stupid.

Zaku's avatar

@stanleybmanly “It is the ethics of the VOTERS which determine our President.”

No it’s not, because the voters are only offered up certain candidates who are approved by the two big compromised political parties, and by the corporate-directed media.

And even if/when other candidates make it onto a ballot, the dirt-stupid single voting system means only the big-party media-supported candidates get any chance to win, EVEN IF the voters know about them and prefer them.

Zaku's avatar

Well, looks like Trump should be going down on state charges, at least, for the recent conversation he placed to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, soliciting election fraud, which was recorded and given to the press.

ragingloli's avatar

@Zaku
And he is suing Georgia for releasing the call.

janbb's avatar

@Zaku Yes, and that crime should make any other fraud charges even more spurious.

lonesome-dog's avatar

Is it possible that Trump is angling for a second Impeachment? He’s still President and the actions are almost certainly impeachable. He’s rather famous for kicking the ball down the field if all else fails: lawsuits, recounts, slandering opponents and threatening cohorts, firing anyone in his way – none of which has worked.

So, let’s go with the quintessential ‘Hail Mary’ pass. Perhaps too unlikely, but…

Impeach me and give me another two years to come up with ‘THE ANSWER’. If this sounds bizarre you haven’t been awake.

seawulf575's avatar

@zaku, it would be interesting to know if the GA AG informed Trump the conversation was being recorded. There are many laws against recording phone calls across state lines without both parties knowing it is being recorded.

stanleybmanly's avatar

it is just plain stupefying how thick some people are. I mean who the fk should have to tell Trump BY NOW that his silly ass will be recorded on a fucking telephone?!?! Who in their right mind would remain in the room or for that matter in the BUILDING if a fuckup like Trump reached for a phone?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Some government agencies record calls. The government agency I work for does. This way if there’s any controversy about what was said on the phone, the supervisor can review it. It helps the workers as well as the public. If someone accuses the worker of saying something or not saying something, let’s go listen to the recording.

When you call the bank or other private companies, often the calls are recorded, as well.

JLeslie's avatar

Usually, people are told they are on a recorded line, but some states only one person on the call needs to be aware of the recording.

JLeslie's avatar

I found this that discusses interstate. https://www.rev.com/blog/phone-call-recording-laws-state

Whether the recording can be used in a court of law is not the only thing though, sometimes having the recording just for proof it happened has value.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 there are many places that record calls. But most have a notice that the call may be recorded. That is the difference. The caller, if they are from out of state especially, knows the call may be recorded. These places give that recording to be compliant with the law. When Trump makes an official call, they do things slightly differently and have witnesses on the phone that are transcribing the conversation…just as they did in his call to Ukraine.

Also, I thank you for calling up the phone call law from Georgia. But that addresses calls originating in and going to Georgia. If you look, they even give the proviso: “That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties.” The laws in the state or country calling you or that you are calling may differ from your own.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie “Whether the recording can be used in a court of law is not the only thing though, sometimes having the recording just for proof it happened has value.” Given the recent views of sworn affidavits and statements from people, I’d say that what we actually have here is an “unproven claim”. It hasn’t been to court so it is not actual evidence. When thousands of people came forward and said they witnessed, first hand, voter fraud, we were all told the claims of a rigged election was unverified. We said that wasn’t evidence. So I’m sorry, a recording means nothing anymore.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: As I said, my employer (local government) records calls. There is nothing telling the people on the other end of the line that the call is recorded.

jca2's avatar

It might not be legal evidence, @seawulf575, but the value of the recording to show the moral character of Trump is invaluable.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Sorry….the Dems and the media and the Big Techies have spoken. If it isn’t legal evidence, it isn’t real and is considered fake. So you are just spreading fake news. It is an unproven claim…you know…a conspiracy theory. See how easy that is? In fact, none of the “news” agencies should be reporting on it at all. What was their excuse for not reporting on voter fraud? They aren’t going to report on something that hasn’t been proven. So I guess they shouldn’t be reporting on anything at all…but that is another discussion.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“If it isn’t legal evidence, it isn’t real and is considered fake.” WTAF??
So trump didn’t really make that call?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III It hasn’t been proven in a court of law. And an audio tape may not be admissible in a court of law. So it isn’t proof. So there is no proof that phone call happened or that it is real. We shouldn’t even be talking about it. Isn’t that the standard you idiots on the left have accepted?

_____'s avatar

@seawulf575: “So there is no proof that phone call happened or that it is real. We shouldn’t even be talking about it.”

^ Ummm, haven’t you heard the call?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Deluded must Dutch and “blank” ? ?

seawulf575's avatar

@_____ Yes, I heard the call. I’ve also heard the testimony of some of those claiming to have seen fraud. But those people and their testimony are being treated as insignificant and not valid as evidence so I’m merely applying the same rules. Just because there is something out there substantial doesn’t make it valid apparently. So until this phone call is used in a court of law, it is unverified, unproven…pick your negation. And since it is unproven, we shouldn’t even be talking about it because to even bring it up amounts to nothing but spreading conspiracy theories. Or so the story goes. And if you see CNN or MSNBC or any of the other idiot leftist outlets “reporting” on this tape, you might want to point out to them that it is unproven and they have already stated they will not report on unproven claims.

_____'s avatar

@seawulf575: “And if you see CNN or MSNBC or any of the other idiot leftist outlets”

oh my fucking god. dipshit.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Sources PLEEZE on “some of those claiming to have seen fraud. But those people and their testimony are being treated as insignificant and not valid as evidence so I’m merely applying the same rules . . . ”

Oh it was Ted Cruz and Rudy KAzootie ! ! HAAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA !

His lawyers got handed their freaking asses ! Baseless and made-up !!

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You are truly one PREPOSTEROUS jackass, and an embarrassment to common sense. I am SO tired of ridiculing your silly ass, but like that dumbbell with the telephone, you just WILL NOT shut up! You just go on and on digging yourself deeper into your idiot hole with ever more ridiculous nonsense of desperation The phone call never happened because it has yet to be proven in a court of law??? How can you bear to subject yourself to the abuse you deserve for anything so stupid? There is no longer any point discussing matters with you. The silliness is now hyperbolic. YOU cannot see that this outrageous nonsense grants everyone here license to shred you to ribbons? Have you any idea AT ALL how horrific the implications are if you truly believe what you print here? I’m not kidding you when I tell you that I truly pray that you are being paid to churn out the stupidities that defame you to the point of making me nauseous. Otherwise, the tragedy of you is too terrible to contemplate.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

WAAA-WAA my hero got PUNKED !!

And I didn’t like it to happen so it it didn’t happen ! !

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

I believe the new DC and Georgia decisions are the 61st and 62nd lawsuits that Trump and his supporters have lost since November.

The DC judge was clearly disgusted and may seek sanctions of the Republicans for their behavior.

“It is not a stretch to find a serious lack of good faith here.”

“Yet even that may be letting Plaintiffs off the hook too lightly. Their failure to make an effort to serve or formally notify any Defendant — even after reminder by the Court in its Minute Order — renders it difficult to believe that the suit is meant seriously. Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures.

“As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.”

link

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie, @stanleybmanly, @_____, and @Call_Me_Jay The affidavits, the sworn testimony to congress and state senates, the evaluation of Fulton County ballots and many, many more have all shown systemic fraud in the election. The proof is there. The fact you don’t want to believe it and want to call it stupid or a conspiracy theory or anything else means you don’t care about facts. That is the leftist claim to fame. That is what all the leftist news outlets are saying…we won’t report on unproven stories…and you have all followed along on that storyline. You try saying the courts won’t take the case so it isn’t real. So, apply your own logic to the tape of Trump talking to the GA Sect of State. It hasn’t been to court, there is no real proof it is even a real tape, it is an unproven story. So it can’t be true. Carry on supporting your idiotic ideals.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I recommend you watch Georgia’s Gabriel Sterling, a Republican, asking Republicans to vote in the Senate race, and addressing the accusations of voter fraud. Here’s the video, it’s about 28 minutes. Not some edited pieces by MSNBC of Fox, but his full press conference. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/04/gabe-sterling-entire-debunks-trump-georgia-election-claims-sot-vpx.cnn

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I recommend you watch Jovan Pulitzer testifying to the GA senate subcommittee about the “irregularities” associated with ballots used in Fulton County GA. Mr. Sterling did not discuss that at all. Mr. Pulitzer also showed that the claim the voting machines…the Dominion machines…were not hacked…couldn’t be hacked…was entirely false since his folks just logged into them from the internet. Yeah, Mr. Stirling didn’t address that either. He just said it didn’t happen. Stirling talks about how they counted the votes over and over and everything was verified. What he doesn’t tell you is that they didn’t keep the paper ballots. They got rid of them. So they didn’t count the actual ballots and compare them to anything. They counted the copies the machine kept. Stirling also gave the pat answer that everyone tries to give: Of course there was fraudulent voting…it happens in every election. We just try to keep it as low as possible. So he is admitting there was fraud. Everyone has admitted there was fraud. So why is it so hard to believe it was excessive? Why doesn’t anyone want to actually dig into the nuts and bolts? Pulitzer showed GROSS irregularities. 96% of the votes had to be adjudicated. 96%! a typical election MIGHT see 1%. But no one even questions it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 Jovan Pulizer is an alias can’t even use his name !

What a shame it is make believe !

JLeslie's avatar

I guess that means you won’t watch my link. Ok.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I did watch your link. That is how I know what Stirling did and didn’t say. But I guess that means you won’t watch my link. Ok.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I understand…it hurts your fantasy. I get it. Jovan Hutton Pulitzer was actually born Jeffry Jovan Philyaw. He legally changed it. He is well known in the internet community because he created Scan commerce and Scan-to-connect technologies. You know…the technology you use every day when you scan something. Even the ballots use this technology. I suspect he knows what he is talking about. But it is just like you to try finding one oddball reason to discount the entire thing. Hey! Here’s a thought: why don’t you watch the links I provided and THEN talk to me about how they are wrong. You know…address the information, not discount it because you don’t like the source for some reason.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Make believe just ‘cause it supports your perceptive is still make believe @seawulf575 !

It is still make believe He like Rudy Kazootie got thrown out !

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Funny….they don’t show proof his claim was false. He was still sworn in for testimony. All they say is they don’t believe it. Just because they say it is a lie doesn’t make it one. So you are right…make believe just ‘cause it supports your perception (corrected your previous error) is still make believe.

seawulf575's avatar

By the way, @Tropical_Willie, did you happen to watch the links I posted? Or are you just in total denial with your mind closed?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Well at least I’m not DELUSIONAL !

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther